National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: CONCLUSIONS
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 1977. Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18431.
×
Page 85

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on its study of the needs, benefits, costs, and probable effects of verification, the panel recommends that a third-party verification system be implemented by the U.S. Geological Survey. This recommendation is made with the recognition that a significant commitment of effort and funding by the USGS and the industry will be required to ensure an effective and constructive system. To aid in establishing and operating the system, the panel offers a series of recommendations, many of which are interdependent. In planning and executing a verification system careful consideration of each element should be taken to minimize delays created by the procedure. The system must be flexible and adaptable in operation to accommodate new technical developments and the time-consuming step- wise process of designing, building, and installing a plat- form. (1) A policy document should be prepared by the USGS to initiate the verification system. The document should establish that the primary goal is to enhance the orderly extension of oil and gas acti- vities in an expeditious and efficient way by assuring the public and the Congress of the integrity of the fixed offshore platforms. The document should define the elements of the verification system and the policy by which the system is implemented. (2) The principal elements that should be included in the verification system are: (a) establishment of environmental design conditions for each offshore area and each class of structure, (b) documentation and promulgation of recommended design and con- struction practices, 51

52 (c) submission and approval of verification plans, (d) verification of design, fab- rication, installation, and enhancement of safety through continuing periodic inspections, (e) issuing of approvals and a permit to operate, (f) a rapid and effective procedure for appeals, and (g) provisions for auditing. (3) The USGS should establish a continuing board of consultants composed of repre- sentatives from industry, academia, the public, and government sectors, to develop and review environmental design conditions and practices (by geographical area and structure type), verification procedures, and qualifications of third- party reviewers. (4) The USGS should provide guidelines for submitting acceptable verification plans for individual projects. Such plans would be initiated by the owner or operator and should describe environ- mental and operating conditions under which the structure must maintain its integrity; the proposed design, fabri- cation, installation, and maintenance procedures; descriptions of the scope of the design reviews, inspection, and testing; and identification of individuals or organizations who will act as the third- party reviewers. (5) For each project, the following general procedure should be applied: (a) The owner or his representative submits a verification plan in accordance with the USGS guide- lines recommended in (4).

53 (b) The USGS accepts the submitted verification plan or issues a statement concerning specific corrections required. (c) Third-party review and inspection is done in accordance with the accepted plan. (d) The USGS acknowledges compliance with the verification program with written approval and issuance of a permit to operate. (e) For cases in which plans or verification practices are contested, an appeal procedure is established by the USGS, possibly through the use of an ad hoc technical panel or the board of consultants. (f) Provisions would be incorporated for step-by-step verification and approval, thus allowing actual work to be initiated in a timely manner. (6) The USGS should directly manage and administer the verification system. Although the board of consultants will make recommendations about the system and individual consultants may be utilized in reviewing verification plans when submitted, the USGS should not delegate its authority and responsibility for establishing environmental design and construction conditions, practices, and verification procedures. This also should apply to approvals of individual verification plans, their implementation, and appeals. (7) The panel recommends that, to be qualified as an independent verification agent (design reviewer or inspector), the design organization or personnel may not have corporate affiliation with the owner or operator; nor should they verify any of the design, fabrication, installation, or

54 operation functions or parts thereof which they or a corporate affiliate have per- formed for the specific platform being verified. The verification agent may thus be drawn from such groups as consultants, engineering companies, and verification societies such as ABS and Det norske Veritas, provided they meet the particular technical and the independence qualifications. (8) The shift from the present USGS system to the implementation of the verification system should be accomplished in an orderly manner, taking into consideration the critical shortage of qualified per- sonnel, the intergovernmental agency cooperation that must be established, and the time required to initiate an effective and useful system. The USGS should establish immediately the board of consultants and develop environmental design and construction practices. During a transition period, an owner or operator could continue to use existing recommended practices and applicable codes, pending the adoption of new ones by the USGS. During this transition period, in-house design approval by a professional engineer in lieu of third-party verification could be continued, although owners and operators of structures should be urged by the USGS to progressively increase their use of independent third parties for verification, thus phasing out the present USGS system. (9) Only when the USGS is staffed adequately and environmental conditions for specific regions have been established, should verification procedures shift from those used in the transition period to those recommended for full third-party verification. (10) It is to be expected that significant technical questions will arise from the verification process. The USGS should take positive steps to insure that necessary research programs are initiated.

55 (11) Procedures for routine reporting of plat- form structural conditions and analysis should be established. The reporting can be implemented using the present USGS reporting system for safety devices. (12) Accident investigation and review should be undertaken to determine the probable cause of major structural failures, or other events as determined to be necessary. Such investigations should be reviewed by a board similar to the National Transportation Safety Board. (13) The USGS should aggressively organize and develop a highly competent staff in order to establish and operate the veri- fication system. Positions must be established with civil service ratings of sufficiently high grade levels to attract highly qualified and competent engineers to undertake the program. Prior experience in offshore work is vital for these key people. (14) The USGS personnel involved in the administration and management of the verification system should be encouraged to participate in technical societies and in other groups concerned with OCS activities. (15) Adequate funding for the management and administration of the verification system needs to be assured by the federal government prior to its implementation. (16) Provision should be made by the USGS for periodic review by an independent group of the efficacy and deficiencies of the established verification system, with appropriate action recommended for alleviating each deficiency.

NOTES 1. Reeds, C. and W.D. Trammell. "Economic Criteria for Analyzing Subsea Field Development." Ocean Industry, Vol. 11, No. 7, July, 1976. 2. Lee, G.C. 1968. "Offshore Structures: Past, Present, Future and Design Consideration." Paper presented at the Offshore Exploration Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 14-16, 1968. 3. Stahl, Bernhard. 1975. "Probabilistic Methods for Offshore Platforms." Annual Meeting Papers, Division of Production. Dallas!American Petroleum Institute. 4. Council on Environmental Quality. 1974. OCS Oil and Gas — An Environmental Assessment, 5 Vols"Washington, DC:Government Printing Office. 5. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. Public Law 212; 67 Stat. 462.43 U.S. Code 1331-1343. 6. National Academy of Engineering, Marine Board. 1972. Outer Continental Shelf Resource Development Safety: A Review of Technology and Regulation for the System- atic Minimization of Environmental Intrusion from Petroleum Products.Washington, DC:National Academy of Sciences. 7. General Services Administration, Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 20, January 29, 1976, p. 4306. 8. National Academy of Engineering, Marine Board. Op. Cit. 9. The Aerospace Corporation. 1976. Verification of Off- shore Structures for Oil and Gas Development, Program Plan. Report ATR-76 (7582)-! and Program Plan Imple- mentation Options—Verification of Offshore Structures for Oil and Gas Development.Report ATR-76(7582)-2. El Segundo, California. 10. Ibid. 11. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. "Approval Procedure for Installation and Operation of 56

57 Platforms, Fixed and Mobile Structures, and Artificial Islands." 12. Department of Energy. 1974. Guidance on the Design and Construction of Offshore Installations. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 13. Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Public Law 85-726. 14. The Aerospace Corporation. Verification of Offshore Structures for Oil and Gas Development, Program Plan and Program Plan Implementation Options—Verification 3J 3h of Offshore Structures for Oil and Gas Development.

APPENDIX A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Aerospace Corporation. Program Plan Implementation Options - Verification of Offshore Structures for Oil and Gas Develop- ment, Report No. ATR-76 (7582)-2, The Aerospace Corporation. El Segundo, Calif., 1976. Allan, A.K. and W.D. Holden. "The Protective Treatment of Accommodation Modules." Paper presented at the Two-Day Con- ference on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Institution of Metallurgists, Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, England, February 19-20, 1976. Allen, Richard T.L. "The Performance of Concrete Structures in the Sea." Paper presented at the Two-Day Joint Conference on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Institution of Metallurgists, Institution of Corrosion Sci- ence and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, England, February 19-20, 1976. American Bureau of Shipping. Rules for Building and Class- ing Offshore Mobile Drilling Units. American Bureau of Shipping, New York, N.Y., 1973. . Rules for Nondestructive Inspection of Hull Welds. American Bureau of Shipping, New York, N.Y. , 1975. . Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels. American Bureau of Shipping, New York, N.Y., 1976. . (Unpublished and Untitled). Presentation before the Panel on Certification of Offshore Structures (of the Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council). Washington, D.C., June 23, 1976. American Petroleum Institute. API Bulletin on Policy and Procedures for Committees on Standardization of Oilfield Equipment and Materials.American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 1973. 58

59 . API Specification for Drilling Rig Packaging for Minimum Self-Contained Platforms. American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 1973. . API Recommended Practice for Production Facil- ities on Offshore StructuredAmerican Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 1974. . API Specification for Carbon Manganese Steel Plate for Offshore Platform Tubular Joints. American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 1974. API Recommended Practice for Planning, Design- ing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms. American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 1976. Atherton, D. "Original and Repair Painting Systems for Off- shore Structures." Paper presented at the Two-Day Confer- ence on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Institution of Metallurgists, Institution of Corro- sion Science and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, England, February 19-20, 1976. Bainbridge, C.A. "Certification of Fixed Steel Platforms in the North Sea." Offshore Technology Conference Preprints, Vol. Ill, pp. 737-756, Dallas, Texas, 1975. Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. (Unpublished). "Fed- eral Aviation Administration Designee System of Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification." Presentation before the Panel on Certification of Offshore Structures (of the Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council). Washington, D.C., June 23, 1976. Bosnak, R.J. "Development of Maritime Safety Standards for Vessel and Equipment Construction by the U.S. Coast Guard." Paper presented at the spring meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Washington, D.C., April 1-3, 1970. Brannon, H. Ray. (Unpublished). "Factors Affecting Cost of Severe Damage or Loss of a Platform." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Brannon, H. Ray. (Unpublished). "Impacts of Third-Party Verification." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976.

60 Brannon, H. Ray. (Unpublished). "Proposed USGS Plan for Structure Verification." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Brannon, H. Ray. (Unpublished). "Platform Systems." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, B.C., 1976. Brown, W.J. (Unpublished). "Presentation on Verification of Offshore Platform Design and Construction -- Program Plan Definition." The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California, 1976. Bureau Veritas. Rules and Regulations for the Construction and Classification of Offshore Platforms. Bureau Veritas, International Register for the Classification of Ships and Aircraft, Paris, France, 1975. Derrington, J.A. (Unpublished). "Certification of Sea Structures." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engi- neering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Det norske Veritas. Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Fixed Offshore Structures. Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway, 1974. Eijnsbergen, J.F.H. "Duplex Systems for Offshore Structures." Paper presented at the Two-Day Joint Conference on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Institu- tion of Metallurgists, Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, England, February 19-20, 1976. Eri, Jacob. "Development and Implementation of Regulations for Permanent Offshore Structures." Offshore Technology Conference Preprints, Vol. Ill, pp. 757-758. Dallas, Texas, 1975. Focht, John A., Jr. (Unpublished). "Foundation of Fixed Offshore Structures." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Gerwick, Ben C., Jr. (Unpublished). "Design, Construction, and Installation of Concrete Offshore Platforms: State-of- the-Art." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineer- ing, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976.

61 Gerwick, Ben C., Jr. (Unpublished). "USGS Verification Program." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineer- ing, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Golay, Claude. (Unpublished). "Presentation of the Off- shore Operators Committee." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washing- ton, D.C., 1976. Hockenhull, B.S. "Stress Corrosion Cracking and Corrosion Fatigue in Offshore Structures." Paper presented at the Two-Day Joint Conference on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Institution of Metallurgists, Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, England, February 19-20, 1976. Kash, Don E., et al. Energy Under the Oceans. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1973. Lee, G.C. (Unpublished). "Offshore Steel Platforms." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Lloyd's Register of Shipping. Rules for the Construction and Classification of Mobile Oftshore uhiTTg'I London. " ' England, 1972. MacKay, W.B. "A Technical and Commercial Evaluation of Cathodic Protection Systems for Offshore Structures." Paper presented at the Two-Day Joint Conference on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Insti- tution of Metallurgists, Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, Eng- land, February 19-20, 1976. Marine Board, National Research Council. Seafloor Engineer- ing: National Needs and Research Requirements. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1976. Meeker, Leonard C. (Unpublished). "Environmental Concerns of the Government and the Public." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976.

62 Morgan, J.H. "Control and Monitoring of Cathodic Protection of Offshore Structures." Paper presented at the Two-Day Joint Conference on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Institution of Metallurgists, Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, England, February 19-20, 1976. Morland, Kenneth. (Unpublished). "Presentation on the American Bureau of Shipping." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washing- ton, D.C., 1976. Nickum, George C. (Unpublished). "Presentation on the Cer- tification of Ships." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Nyhart, J.D. (Unpublished). "Administrative and Legal Implications." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Nyhart, J.D. (Unpublished). "Presentation on Legal Aspects Pertinent to Certification of Offshore Structures." Available from Marine Board, Assemby of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Office of the Chief of Engineers. Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams. Department of The Army. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Undated. Offshore Operators Committee. 1975 (Draft). Offshore Operators Committee Comments on OCS Order No. 8, Platforms, Structures, and Associated Equipment. Presented to the U.S. Geological Survey Public Meeting, Metaire, Louisiana, February 25, 1975. Purser, Paul E. "MASAR - Management Assurance of Safety, Adequacy, and Reliability." Offshore Technology Conference Preprints, Vol. II, pp. 852-858. Dallas, Texas 1972. Piche, LCDR Gordon G. (Unpublished). "Presentation on the U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Certification Program." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Radlinski, W.A. "U.S. Offshore Regulations." Offshore Tech- nology Conference Preprints, Vol. Ill, pp. 759-760. Dallas, Texas, 1975.

63 Searle, W.F., Jr. and Grubbs, C.E. (Unpublished). "Inspec- tion, Repair, and Servicing of Offshore Structures." Avail- able from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Snider, W.D., et al. "Management of Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development Risks." Paper presented at the Symposium on Marine Resources Development in the Middle Atlantic States, Williamsburg, Virginia, October 29-30, 1976. Society for Underwater Technology. Offshore Fixed Struc- tures . Society for Underwater Technology, London, England, 1974. Sparks, Cecil R. (Unpublished). "Codes." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Stahl, Bernhard. "Probabilistic Methods for Offshore Platforms." Annual Meeting Papers, Division of Production. American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 1975. St. Amant, Lyle S. (Unpublished). "Foreplanning for Envi- ronmental Control." Available from Marine Board, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. Stiansen, Stanley G. The Role of the American Bureau of Shipping in the Construction of Offshore Structures.Pre- sented at the New England Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Newton, Massachusetts, April 6, 1976. i Stiansen, Stanley G. "Structural Response and Computer- Aided Design Procedure." Paper presented at the Ship Structure Symposium, Washington, D.C., October 6-8, 1975. Street, William R. "United Kingdom Regulations for Perma- nent Offshore Structures." Offshore Technology Conference Preprints, Vol. Ill, pp. 731-736, Dallas, Texas, 1975. Ternet, James. Presentation (Outline Form) on the Federal Aviation Administration Designee System of Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification, Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. (Undated). U.S. Coast Guard. Rules and Regulations for Artificial Islands and Fixed Structures on the Outer Continental Shelf. Department of Transportation.U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972.

64 U.S. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers. "Permits for Activities in Navigable Waters or Ocean Waters." Fed- eral Register, Vol. 40, No. 144, pp. 31320-31428, U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July 25, 1975. U.S. Geological Survey. An Oilspill Risk Analysis for the Mid-Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area, Geological Survey Open File Report 76-451.Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1976. U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Resource Management of the Outer Continental Shelf, Geological Survey Circular 720. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1975. U.S. Geological Survey. OCS Orders 1 thru 12 Governing Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Leases in the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico Area"! Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1975. White, P.E. and J. Simonds. "Mechanical Fasteners for Off- shore Structures." Paper presented at the Two-Day Joint Conference on Long Service from Offshore Structures, sponsored by the Institution of Metallurgists, Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, England, February 19-20, 1976.

APPENDIX B THE RELATION OF RESEARCH TO CERTIFICATION HUDSON MATLOCK In the present consideration of certification of off- shore fixed platforms, primary emphasis has been placed on frontier areas. For frontier areas, the need for gathering new knowledge and for the development of new and innovative engineering methods is obvious. Even in established areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, there is a continuing need for extension and refinement of existing technology. Three distinct areas of investigation should be recog- nized: (1) acquisition of environmental data and under- standing of pertinent processes and effects, (2) development of methods for analysis, design, and construction, and (3) observation of performance as a basis for refining correlations between (1) and (2), for improving engineering methods and for continuing review of codes and regulations. History of Cooperative Research The world-wide construction of offshore platforms dur- ing the last three decades constitutes a truly remarkable achievement. In terms of rapid and massive development of technology and especially of benefits to mankind, it is in- teresting to compare it to the conquest of outer space. The research and development which provided the basis for the accomplishment have had an interesting history. The earliest platforms, in relatively shallow water, were extensions of onshore marsh area capabilities, for the most part on a company-by-company basis. In the fifties, there were attempts at organizing jointly-supported research ef- forts in such areas as wave forces, structures and founda- tions. However, it soon became evident that a more expedi- tious and effective process resulted when one company pro- vided the leadership for a particular research effort and 65

66 then offered the results on a cost-sharing basis to others. This practice continues to the present time, although in the last few years the participation has broadened greatly, with projects typically involving 10 to 15 companies. Along with a broader base of support for the research has come more rapid and widespread dissemination of the results. With regard to fixed-platform technology, management groups in most companies have come into agreement with technical people that proprietary interests are minimal and that it is very desirable to have rapid dissemination through such vehicles as the Offshore Technology Conference. Some of this attitude can be attributed to the desire to provide a rational basis for anticipated development of codes and regulations. Research for offshore platform design has been charac- terized by a high degree of objectivity on the part of the sponsors. For the most part, the companies supporting the research are also the owners and are looking for technically sound solutions to difficult problems. Public Interest and Responsibility in Research Perhaps oversimplified, the justification for certifi- cation of offshore structures appears to rest on the public interest in enhancing recovery of resources and in protect- ing against environmental damage and injury to personnel. With regard to the necessary development of knowledge and engineering capabilities, there appear to be two possible approaches: (1) continued development by industry alone or (2) joint efforts by government and industry. If only to provide a basis for certification and regulation, it appears that the second choice is more likely. Currently, govern- ment agency efforts and government contract research fund- ing are applied in the national interest to many other seg- ments of our economy. Government efforts would appear to be best applied in providing environmental data on a broad scale and in sponsor- ing background research. Particularly for frontier areas, the private sector must be free to provide the innovative solutions required for new and unusual problems. On the other hand, any groups involved in the certification of structures also should be closely involved in the knowledge- development process in order to keep abreast of current developments. All parties should be cooperatively involved in the ongoing study of performance. This must not be limited to periodic safety inspections. A great deal can be gained

67 for the future by monitoring earthquake, wave, wind, and other natural phenomena correlated with the observed perfor- mance of structures. Provisions for measurements should be considered in the original design of structures. In view of the present state of knowledge, primary emphasis should be placed on simple and reliable check-point types of ob- servations, and overly elaborate instrumentation schemes should be avoided. Finally, procedures must be developed to accelerate the exchange of all environmental data, research on methods, and observations of performance.

APPENDIX C McDERMOTT HUDSON ENGINEERING TECHNICAL WORK REVIEW - STRUCTURAL T. R. WARTELLE A. INTENTION 1. Prevent structural failures and monetary loss to McDermott and our customers. 2. Improve Quality of Design. a. Ensure design is in accordance with the criteria. b. Ensure design is in accordance with current standards and codes. c. Ensure design can be fabricated and installed on most economical basis by our construction divisions. d. Ensure designed structure and/or system functions properly in field. 3. Develop consistency of work to ensure design by various departments is in a standardized form best suited for use by our construction divisions and customers. 4. Ensure continuance of education of personnel in latest codes, standards, and construction techniques. B. APPROACH 1. Consider review of equal importance with initial design. 2. Review items that affect structural adequacy, performance, and/or ability to construct. 3. Review only and do not redesign, since responsibil- ity remains with initial designer. Only construc- tive criticism is sought. 63

69 4. Schedule review so that original design is generally complete before it begins. Review may be in phases or in one package depending on particular project requirements. C. TYPES OF REVIEWS 1. No Review a. The work involved is so minor that no review is warranted. b. The structure is not designed by one of the corporation engineering departments. 2. Routine Review a. The structure involved is a type or design that has been performed frequently and does not have any special or unique problems associated with it, b. The primary emphasis is in comparing the key design, fabrication and installation parameters with those of previous projects. c. The comparison normally is completed by techni- cal review personnel in the New Orleans Techni- cal Review Section. 3. Intermediate Review a. The structure involved is the first (a proto- type) of a new series of modified platform com- ponents, such as a new deck type. The structure involved also may have an unusual fabrication and/or installation procedure, such as projects involving drilled-in piling. b. A thorough review is performed of the structural analysis model and/or the computerized structural analysis input and output with emphasis on the unique areas of the design. This is in addition to the work performed in a routine review. c. The intermediate review normally is completed by an engineer in one of the three Structural Design Departments (New Orleans, Wembley, Houston), or the Special Projects Department in New Orleans office. The only limitations on the selection of this engineer are his experience,

70 availability, and non-involvement in the original design. 4. Major Review a. The structure involved has difficult and/or unique design, fabrication, or installation procedures. b. A thorough review of the entire design is per- formed in sufficient detail to satisfy the re- viewer of the adequacy of all aspects of the design. This is always in greater depth than an intermediate review. c. The major review normally is completed by an engineer in one of the three Structural Design Departments (New Orleans, Wembley, Houston), or in the Special Projects Department in the New Orleans office. The only limitations on the selection of this engineer are his experience, availability, and non-involvement in the original design. Obviously, placing portions of a given project into the above types of review requires discretion by the struc- tural design engineer and his supervisor. Also, the review types descriptions provide guidelines and are not all encompassing. D. INFORMATION FLOW PROCEDURE 1. The project is received by the Engineering Depart- ment and a project engineer is assigned. 2. As soon as possible thereafter, the design (and/or project) engineer notifies the Work Review Section via the project engineer of the following: a. A description of the project. b. The type of review required for each review category subject to supervisory discretion. c. The schedule for the review. 3. Based on this information, Work Review selects (in conjunction with Review Contacts in the different offices) the engineer (s) who will be performing the review.

71 4. When the design is ready for review, the review materials are forwarded directly to the reviewer by the designer(s). 5. Once the reviewer receives these materials, he acknowledges their receipt and indicates if he can meet the desired review schedule. Work review scheduling conflicts are jointly resolved by Work Review and Review Contacts, 6. The reviewer then proceeds with the review. All technical questions concerning the review materials are resolved directly between the respective designers and reviewers. 7. Upon completion of his work, the reviewer forwards his review findings to the designer, project engineer, Work Review Section, and managers of the structural departments. 8. As soon as possible after receiving the review, the design engineer forwards: a. His answers and actions taken with respect to the review to the reviewer, Work Review Section, and to the managers of the structural departments. b. To the reviewer, any additional or revised calcu- lations that have been added to the design file if he and his supervisors feel additional review is warranted. 9. The Work Review Section completes its records and advises the Work Review Technical Committee of any unresolved difficulties or unique happenings. 10. The Work Review Technical Committee then takes what- ever action deemed appropriate.

APPENDIX D OUTLINE OF PROPOSED PROGRAM POLICY GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR OCS STRUCTURAL VERIFICATION PROGRAM PREFACE Purpose: To provide common general requirements and policy guidance for a program of verification of structural integrity for fixed oil and gas platforms in all USGS OCS regions. Basic Philosophy: To institute an effective program for such verification that: will provide added assurance to the public of the safe USGS and industry develop- ment of OCS resources; best utilizes the available technical competence in the U.S.; introduces a mini- mum burden upon both the USGS and industry in its implementation; and provides for broad public, govern- ment, and industry input to the regulations. Policy: The policy of the USGS shall be to institute and implement a structural verification program that: is consistently applied throughout the several OCS regions; rests on a sound technical basis recognizing differences in the environmental conditions; is flexi- ble and adaptable to OCS frontier areas; does not hinder safe OCS resource development on a reasonable time scale; is based on performance-oriented regula- tions; and encourages the development and use of new technology. Approach: The approach of this document is to outline and briefly discuss the basic policy of the USGS in de- veloping and implementing an effective program of structural verification of offshore facilities. The outline includes the relationships of the USGS to: 0 Other concerned Federal and State agencies; 0 The offshore oil and gas production industry; 0 The supporting service industries who conduct structural design, fabrica- tion, installation, and maintenance of offshore facilities; 72

73 0 The various sources of standards, specifications, design codes, etc.; 0 The various sources of verification agents for the conduct of design reviews, inspections, etc.; and 0 The public and its representatives. The detailed content of implementation plans and man- agement plans for the verification system are the subjects of other documents. INTRODUCTION Scope: Fixed, bottom-founded, oil and gas platforms in the U.S. OCS. (May be wise to include statements on pos- sibly extending scope later to include all OCS safety and pollution-control activities; i.e., everything covered in Gulf of Mexico OCS Orders #1 thru #10 and maybe #12.) Approach*: The approach of this program will be to depend primarily on USGS monitoring of industry's adherence to a pre-planned and USGS-approved plan for the design, fabrication, operation, inspection, and maintenance of each new OCS oil and gas platform. In its monitoring, USGS will depend upon competent third-party personnel to conduct design reviews and to conduct or monitor quality-assurance programs and inspections.** The pro- gram will be implemented in an orderly, phased, manner; and will depend initially upon existing technology, design procedures, criteria, standards, etc. These technology elements will be reviewed and updated first as necessary to assure that they conform to the USGS program policy enunciated in the preceding section, and then only when determined on sound technical bases to be necessary for improving the structural integrity of OCS oil and gas platforms. General Relationships and Responsibilities: (Policy; not detailed procedures, etc.) Relation to other USGS regulations and requirements. Relation to other Federal regulations and requirements. Actions and prerogatives of the Government: *This particular approach is based on the Panel's proposed Verification System. If some other system is selected, the approach description would, of course, be different. **As defined in OCS notice to lessees, etc., Federal Regis- ter, January 29, 1976.

74 General USGS rights to data, etc.; Proprietary rights of industry; Third-party evaluations (use of, and approval of, third parties); and Inputs to Government R&D and data- exchange programs. Actions and Prerogatives of Industry: Proprietary Rights; Participation in R&D and data- exchange programs; Responsibility for subcontractors; Actions and prerogatives of third parties; Access to data and records. Reference to Glossary of Terms. DOCUMENTATION: (Emphasis on policy; not on details of content, etc.) Types — Statutes, Federal Regs., OCS orders, criteria, standards, API specs, stds., and RP's, etc. Sources & Approvals — Use of Board of Consultants for development and Federal Register Route for final promulgation. Periodic revision & update -- Revise only as necessary, and only with sound technical basis. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: (Policy on authorities and responsibilities) USGS-Hq, Regional, and Area Offices (including appeal routes). Assistance for Board of Consultants. Industry. Third parties. Third-party qualification. Training -- USGS, third parties, industry. Interagency activities -- R&D and data exchange. VERIFICATION ENGINEERING: (Policy on responsibilities of USGS, industry, et al.) General. Environmental design conditions. Design, construction, and inspection procedures. Standards and specifications. Failure reporting and analysis. Requirements for Safety.

75 VERIFICATION OPERATIONS: (Policy on responsibilities of USGS, industry, et al.) Industry plan development — General contents, include nominations of third parties. USGS Plan Approval — include approval of third parties. Industry, USGS, and Third-party activities. Accident Review. APPENDICES: Glossary of Terms. Reference to USGS Regulations, etc. Reference to other Federal Regulations, etc. USGS-required documents. Related Documents. GENERAL NOTES (not part of document) Be sure to cover the policy basis for deciding: Who does what, when, to whom; How to select third parties; General content of industry submittal (not too specific, but yet enough to assure uniformity); Specs and standards — Performance-oriented, how to start, where to get later. Some portion of document should explain policies on: Grandfather clauses — how to treat existing plat- forms — (mainly periodic inspection with time based on past history; minimum update of plan when major changes made in structure or loads [review only new engineering, etc.]); Varying depth of treatment based on prior experi- ence ; Basing all decisions on sound technical data and reasoning; not on personal preference; Review and appeal route.

APPENDIX E AN EXAMPLE OF AN OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM by Rupert C. Craze Petroleum Engineer INTRODUCTION If the USGS is to be responsible for the verification of offshore structures, it must have personnel competent in offshore technology. Such verification will involve per- sonnel working with industry and academia to develop prac- tical criteria for efficient design, construction, instal- lation, and maintenance of integrity for oil and gas platforms, in both the development and operation phases. The more competent the government personnel are in these offshore-related engineering disciplines, the more efficient the agency will be. Fewer management tiers and thus, fewer personnel will be needed. Criteria and regulations devel- oped will be more realistic and less complicated; corre- sponding documentation that industry must submit showing compliance will also be simpler, thus completing the loop and easing the communications between government and indus- try. The design, construction, installation, and operation of offshore platforms involve skills in a wide diversity of disciplines in the technical and management areas that are not presently characteristic of the USGS staff. A need exists, therefore, for a comprehensive training program in offshore technology to provide rapid transfer of knowledge in the subject to existing and new USGS personnel. A major approach to imparting the necessary expertise to the USGS personnel is through the medium of saturation learning process; i.e., a rapid training program involving the latest developments in all areas of offshore technology. 76

77 DISCUSSION Training Program Needs A training program should be designed specifically for those USGS personnel (present staff and new hires) whose chief responsibilities are in the areas of developing, managing, and implementing a verification program for off- shore systems. The program should be a cooperative effort of the USGS, academia, industry, and consultants. The courses should be designed to transfer the latest and most efficient technology developed by industry in the offshore field. The curriculum should include broad overview courses for all the appropriate USGS personnel. This should be followed by a group of concurrent intensive courses in each of several disciplines pertinent to offshore structural design, constructions, and verification. Each USGS "off- shore" staff member would take courses, related to the dis- cipline for which that person would have responsibility. As an adjunct to the above more formal and saturated course of instruction, further training might be implemented by the following: 0 Loan of industry personnel to the USGS on a temporary basis, working with USGS personnel to guide them on the job and train them as instructors in further courses given in the offshore area. 0 Transfer of USGS personnel on temporary loan to industry in specific areas to upgrade their expertise and to view industry activities at first-hand, with on-the-job experience. 0 Maintenance of a liaison "faculty" to provide a constant awareness and ability to analyze and utilize the results of continuing industrial and academic research developments in the field of offshore technology. 0 Participation of USGS personnel in the relevant activities of the several technical societies, such as the SPE (AIME), the Offshore Technology Con- ference, special study groups, and consulting organizations active in this field.

78 Example: Saturated Training in the Petroleum Industry The training program described in the following pre- sents the background, philosophy, and logic that led to the presentation of several highly-successful concentrated courses developed for in-house use by petroleum industry personnel. The initial course covered the field of reservoir engineering and was designed to teach competent petroleum engineers engaged in field operations the basic fundamentals and latest reservoir technology developed by research. The course was designed for rapid transfer of highly technical knowledge to the operating petroleum engineers who were responsible for the efficient development and operation of oil and gas reservoirs. The goal to be achieved by the reservoir engineering course was the logical and practical application of the most up-to-date research developments in reservoir engineering so that the operating engineers might apply these developments to maximize the recovery of hydro- carbons from the underground reservoirs in an efficient and economical manner. A secondary goal was to impart to the operating engineers a sufficiently high expertise in reser- voir engineering so that they in turn could serve as "fac- ulty" themselves in an on-going program of instruction in the subject to incoming petroleum engineers. In this fashion the continuing developments in production research were blended with the practical knowledge obtained from actual applications in the field. This process expanded and updated the course coverage for utilization on a broad- ened base to all of the engineers involved in the operation of the diverse reservoirs encountered. Over a period of time, this course has had considerable impact, not only in the operational reservoir engineering aspects, but also in such areas as well completion, well spacing, and efficient well operations. It further influ- enced the exploratory efforts, and had considerable impact on the technical foundations upon which governmental agen- cies promulgated their regulatory programs, working with industry to achieve a realistic conservation effort to produce oil and gas most efficiently. Development of the Subject of "Reservoir Engineering" Early research conducted by personnel of one of the major oil companies in the area of production research, beginning in the late 1920's and in the 1930's, both in the laboratory and in the field, established some very

79 fundamental principles relating to the behavior of fluids in oil and gas reservoirs and to a preliminary knowledge and understanding of the performance of those reservoirs. During this period, it was recognized that detailed studies of the performance of oil reservoirs had considerable value in direct application to field operation. Obtaining these benefits, however, required developing a comprehensive ex- position of the fundamental principles governing reservoir behavior in order to transfer the accumulated knowledge to the using personnel. A detailed report was prepared (in book form) that presented these fundamental principles governing reservoir behavior as established by research to that date. This report was given wide distribution among the operating elements within the company, as well as among research per- sonnel. Of course, many of the subjects included in this report had been presented by the company's researchers in technical papers presented to and published by the several technical societies to which they belonged. In that fashion, this knowledge was also made available to industry as a whole. It was during the period leading up to the publication of that report in 1940 that a new science had gradually evolved in petroleum production engineering. This new science was designated "reservoir engineering;" it became an integral part of petroleum production engineering, and it dealt principally with the movement of fluids in and the recovery of fluids from oil and gas reservoirs. It might be pointed out in passing that petroleum research organiza- tions of several oil companies and in various universities were concurrently investigating various aspects of the subject of reservoir and well performance and were publish- ing papers that added much to the available knowledge of this specialized technology. Thus, reservoir engineering grew in importance as a vital tool that could aid the petro- leum production engineer as he put this new science to practical use in the field. Formation of a "Reservoir Engineering" School With the stimulus provided by the Production Research Division's outstanding work during the 1930"s in developing some of the methods of analyzing reservoir behavior, studies of several oil fields demonstrated the practical feasibility of applying these methods of analyses to actual field opera- tions to improve recovery of oil and gas. The onslaught of World War II, and the attendant increased demand for

80 petroleum, brought to the forefront the necessity for opera- ting each oil reservoir at its maximum efficiency in order to supply the war demands for petroleum and its products. This led to an increasing volume of work necessary to con- duct technical analyses of each reservoir to obtain high operating efficiency. This work-load problem was compounded by the losses of technical men to the armed forces. It became readily apparent that the remaining few petroleum production engineers who were familiar with the reservoir engineering techniques could not handle the increasing volume of work effectively. To alleviate this shortage of technical men, plans were made in 1944 to train some of the outstanding petroleum engineers in other divisions in the subject of reservoir engineering by means of a concentrated program of transfer of available knowledge in the technology of reservoir engineering as developed by research. The first course of study included seven students for a three and one-half month period beginning in late 1944. Lec- tures and work sessions on applicable field problems were continued on a full-time basis for the entire period of this course, known as the first "Reservoir Engineering School." Later, as these first "students" began to apply the results of their training to field operations, it became apparent that this type of reservoir engineering training was very profitable. Plans were soon made to enlarge the group of production engineers having such training. As a consequence, the Reservoir Engineering School has been continued to the present time in concentrated fashion at annual intervals, with the class sizes enlarged to include an avarage of 30-40 technical personnel. As successive Reservoir Engineering Schools were conducted, it became possible in greater degree to utilize as instructors many of the petroleum engineers who had attended earlier schools and who had attained a high degree of competence as prac- ticing "reservoir engineers." Of course, the initial or- ganization continued to supply instructors in subjects in their particular areas of competence. Throughout the entire succession of Reservoir Engi- neering Schools, every effort has been made to update the course content to reflect the latest developments in reser- voir engineering technology emanating from both research and operations within the company, from developments published by others in the industry, and from published advances in reservoir engineering within the academic world. The experience gained with the first Reservoir Engi- neering School indicated the need for a Reservoir

81 Engineering Manual for use both in subsequent training work and as a guide for reservoir engineering work throughout the company operations. A tentative manual was completed in time for use by the third class in its study program. Following this third class, the manual was completely re- vised and printed. Subsequent revisions and increases in the scope of the manual's content have been made to include up- to-date developments that have evolved in reservoir engi- neering technology. These revisions in the manual incor- porated the latest thinking and experience in all the various facets of study material utilized, and made the manual an important text-book adjunct in the presentation of the course and in its further use as a guide and refer- ence in practical field application. In the late 1950's, the rapid advances made in the area of reservoir engineering made it apparent that additional training should be given to many of the practicing reservoir engineers who had already attended the prior regular schools. Accordingly, plans were made to upgrade the skills of these engineers through attendance in an "Advanced Reser- voir Engineering School." The course of study was intense in its training and covered the most recent developments evolving from research and practical field experience. These schools were scheduled according to the needs at the time and proved quite successful in improving the profici- ency of those who participated in this advanced training. Establishment of Training Programs in Other Technical Fields The success of the "Reservoir Engineering School" program exerted considerable influence among technical per- sonnel engaged in other areas of activity throughout the company's operations. With the experience gained from the format of reservoir engineering training, the company em- barked upon similar programs of instruction in the areas of Production Operations, Drilling and Well Completion Prac- tices, Well Log Interpretation, and other facets of company operations. These schools were designed to transfer the latest developments in the respective areas of study to operational personnel including production engineers, dril- ling engineers, geologists, and geophysicists throughout the company. These schools likewise have greatly enhanced the skills of the operating technologists and have proved highly successful.

82 Other Means of Training Technical Personnel — as Continuing Education In less formal and concentrated approaches in training, the approach has been used of transferring competent engi- neering and scientific personnel on a loan basis from one area of technical endeavor to another area in order to give on-the-job training to personnel in needed skills. For example, the field engineer may be transferred to work with a research group to supplement his practical knowledge, and the reserach man may be sent to the field to gain a realis- tic approach to field operational problems. The use of consultants as highly-competent specialists in their field of endeavor who are brought into contact with research and operating people has been very successful as another medium of transfer of technology. Another training procedure has been the effective use of university professors to present short but highly-concentrated instruction in fields of their particular competence to selected classes of research and operational personnel as in-house courses in needed areas of skills. In reverse fashion, technical personnel may attend courses given at various universities to acquire additional training in specific areas. Other methods of upgrading the expertise of company personnel reside in an active partici- pation in the various technical societies; presenting papers, attending meetings of these organizations, attending special courses and study groups sponsored by the societies, and becoming actively involved on special committee assignments, both technical and administrative. It is through these society activities and programs that a high degree of effec- tive interchange of technical know-how is achieved. CONCLUDING REMARKS The history, planned format, practicability, and suc- cessful operation of the "Reservoir Engineering School" exemplified in the preceding discussion appear to offer considerable aid to the development of a concentrated trans- fer of knowledge in offshore technology to the personnel of the USGS. It is the sincere hope that this presentation, based on actual industrial experience, may prove to be help- ful to those responsible for developing a course specifi- cally designed to meet the needs for rapid training of USGS personnel.

APPENDIX F CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STUDY Stanley Anderson American Bureau of Shipping Lawrence Bates American Bureau of Shipping Keith Blythe Federal Aviation Administration William Brown Aerospace Corporation Rupert C. Craze Petroleum Engineer Patrick Dunn Offshore Operators Committee G.L. Foote U.S. Army Corps of Engineers E.R. Genois Petro-Marine Engineering C.E. Golay Offshore Operators Committee C.E. Grubbs Chicago Bridge & Iron Works Co. W.M. Hannan American Bureau of Shipping J. Hoffman Aerospace Corporation Dale Kroeger American Bureau of Shipping K.D. Morland American Bureau of Shipping 83

84 Herbert Morriss Aerospace Corporation Gordon Piche U.S. Coast Guard John Sherwin American Bureau of Shipping Eugene Silva Naval Facilities Engineering Command S.G. Stiansen American Bureau of Shipping J.A. Ternet Boeing Company Joseph Vadus NOAA Office of Engineering T.R. Wartelle J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc. Robert L. Wiegel University of California, Berkeley R. Wills U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

America's demand for energy is now growing at 2.5 percent a year, according to the Federal Energy Administration, and its dependence on foreign oil is increasing rapidly—from 26 percent before the 1973 oil embargo to 46 percent in February 1977. One important source of new oil and gas reserves lie off the coasts of the U.S. This offshore region, only about 2 percent of which has been opened for production, provided 16.4 percent of the nation's oil and 14 percent of its natural gas in 1975, and according to the predictions of the American Petroleum Institute by 1985 the yield could double.

In the near future, exploration and production will be extended from the principal sites of present offshore oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and the offshore Southern California to the Gulf of Alaska and the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, where storm, seismic, and geological conditions are different. The projected increase in such oil and gas recovery from the U.S. outer continental shelf has intensified public and government concerns about conserving vital resources, protecting the environment, and safeguarding human life.

Verification of Fixed Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: An Analysis of Need, Scope, and Alternative Verification Systems reviews the practices in the verification of the structural adequacy of fixed offshore oil and gas platforms—that is, the production facilities permanently fixed to the seabed by pilings, spread footings, and other means. This book also reviews the need for establishing a third-party verification procedure and if deemed necessary, how that procedure might operate. This report recommends that a third-party verification system should be implemented by the United States Geological Survey for future production platforms in all U.S. waters, and discusses essential elements for the system, with a description of how third-party verification might operate.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!